The Lake Charles echo. [volume] (Lake Charles, Parish of Calcasieu, La.) 1876-1898, 1887-06-11
LOUISIANA, SATURDAY
SIXTEENTH SECTIONS,
-he school Board of Caddt
Parish ON lhe NRuts
land HEntGeF


land Matter
lton Rouge CapitOlian. Advocate
Verify, our reform contemporaries are In
rd luck. Every gun they have fired of
s year appears to have been one of those
fashioned fint-lock blunderbusses that
more damage to the shooter than to the
get. They blaZed away at the contract
between the parish school boards and lawyer
Rutland, and from the noise they made and
the smoke they raised, people unacquainted
with their ways no doubt thought they had
hit the bulls eye.
As the target in this instance happened to
include the parish school boards, which are
composed generally of gentlemen of high
character and intelligence, many Of whom
being attorneys of note, 1t could hardly be
expected that they would quietly submit to
the reflections that were made in some of
the violent editorials of our reform contem-
( porares.
Weary Of these continued attacks, the
school board of Caddo parish, one of the
finest in tine State, published the following
statement in the Shreveport Times of the
24th of May, which we recommend to the
careful perusal of our readers as a squelcher
of this campaign rooFbacF;
| To the Editor Of the Timcs
In your issue OF the 20th instant you say
"The 80 per cent EastoR grab cannot be
explained away. The hard fact remains that
half of the money that should have gone to
| the public school back interest fund for the
benefit Of the children Of the State has gone
to a private party, and this, too, not only
with the consent, but by the advice of the
State Superintendent Of Education"
In previous issues of your paper you have
published much of similar tenor, editorials
and clippings from the State press Much has
likewise been said in explanation of this
matter. Mr.. Steele, State Auditor, has given
a very clear and well tempered explanation
tiOn sales as found in his office. The New
Orleans States of the 18th instant contains a
most exhaustive, and, we think, satisfactory
exposition of the whole matter. The same
may be said of the elaborate and generally
accurate article in the Shreveport Journal Of
the 10th instant. But MOI one word from
any Of these explanations do you publish In
your clippings.
The publications regarding this so-called
"grab" have started the very proper and
natural query, "WhO is 10 blame for this ?"
Various answers have been given. Some
hold that Rutland, the attorney, is some
say Treasurer Burke, some Auditor Steele,
some Superintendent Easton, and some the
contracting parish school boards.
Now we have this to say, and we ask you
to do us the justice to publish 1t In your pa
per, that o simple statement should place
beyond debate Or doubt, that none other
than the Parish School Boards are to blame.
And we whose names are signed hereto de-
sire 1t to be distinctly understood that we,
as members of the School Board, are willing
to assume the full measure of blame, So far
as the contract we made with Rutland Is
concerned, we were apprtsed that by reassn
Of confusion In the records Of the Auditors
office, the townships in the several parishes
were not properly credited with their quota
of the sixteenth section fuad. We did not
stop to inquire who was to blame for this
confusion. We knew that inquiry neces-
STATED an investigation of acts occurring
before the war, as none Of the school lands
Of Caddo parish had been sold since the war.
We took the fact as we found it-that the
records In the Auditors office concerning
the sale of these lands were In such a state
Of ineompleteness and confusion that proper
and full credits could not be given to the
townships and pariehes. We recognized that
these records must be corrected before the
proper credits could be given. We did not
see then, nor do we see now, that It was the
duty of Auditor Steele, Treasurer Burke,
Superintendent Easton, or any State officer
to do this. We recognized then, and fully
know now, that the work of correcting
and compiling these records was difficult
and laborious task. We felt It TO be the duty
of our board to procure for cur parish all Of
that fund the parish was entitled to, and 10
that end II was our duty 70 furnish TO the
Auditor, as far SIS we could, a complete re-
cord OF the sales In sour parish. To
do so was q work beyond the reach and
compass Of our board, except by employ
Mr.. Rutland, On attorney, who by reason
Of bis employment in the litigation between
Carroll and Union parishes, had become
familiar with the work, offered his services
as an attorney to do this work for our board.
Bis offer involved simply business transae-
ton. Our board gave full consideration to
HIS offer, and employed him to do for us
what we could not do ourselves, and what
we deemed II our duty to have done. The
contract was between our School Board. No
other person bad aught to do with II. Mr..
Easton had nothing TO do with II. We did,
and deserve, and are willing to bear, the
blame. We were perfectly free 10 reject
toFney II we saw At. We were satisfied With
his terms II he recovered nothing for us, he
got no pay. His contingent fee Of one-half
Of the back interest recovered we did not
deem unusual or extrayagant. We had three
attorneys, members Of our board, all present
anu NOldIlk AOF bll5 SAlplD1ulblb VI NQAAhlu <
all familiar with the rate Of charges IN their
profession not word from them that the
fee charged was unusual We haye YET 10
learn that II was unusually large
Our board In regular meeting on Jan. 70,
1886, at which were present s. B. McCut-
chen, president 4. 3. Bell secretary j. II.
Shepherd, u H Stephens, John j. Horan,
Dr.. w. 4. Wildwood and John s, Young
passed q resolution authorizing It's president
and secretary to contract with Mr.. Rutland
on the basis Of bis proposition that day sub
mitted. The contract was signed and Mr..
Rutland went to work. ~ ld March following
he sent to our treasurer Sl739 10, and on May
12, 1887, our treasurer received from him the
additional sum of $242.75, making a total Of
S203i IS paid into our treasury as the result
OF our contract with Rutland. II Is true that
under the contract be was TO have and he
did Tetain-an equal sum as his fee. But
this Is a smal part Of the benefit 10 this par
ieh resulting from Mr. Rutland's work Be- |
fore his work Of correcting the records, this
parish had been receiving from that fund
$I32Q.73. BE has had placed to our credit
as increase Of capital $2l $3.50, annual In
terest on which at 4 per cent amounts 10
$4,000. N other words, this parish VIII re-
sS75.09 more than it had been receiving be-
fore, This IS continuing benefit Mr.. Rut-
land asks no part cf this a simple caleula-
ton viii show what this is worth TO the
school tund ot this parish ln short, we
made With MI. RntiaAd a contract, under
which he has 70 this date received and paid
into our treasury s203i .S5, and increased our
annuei dividend $4,000 for the future. For
this We have paid him fee of S20S1.S5. We
thought then, and think still, that we made
a good contract IL we erred We are alone
to blame We are not willing 70 remain
silent and see our faults ddled on others.
Very respectfully,
s B. MCCUTCHEN,
JOHN J; HoRAE,